October 7, 2011

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. How does that square with the image — seared in our brains — of thousands of protesters cramming into the rotunda and winding themselves up into a frenzy of indignation?

Van Hollen said those demonstrations did not change his opinion on whether people should be allowed to carry guns in the Capitol.

"Any one of them could have been carrying a firearm without our knowledge already had they wanted to do so," Van Hollen said.

At one point in the protests, weapons screening was introduced, but it's gone now. These days, there's nothing to stop a person with criminal intent from going in with a gun, so Van Hollen is implying that it's in fact a safeguard for ordinary citizens to have guns too. He doesn't come out and say that though. Having seen the effect of the rotunda on the human mind, I worry about ordinary citizens in the Capitol with guns.

If there is any criminal intent, I assure you it will be one of the leftards that will express it. Barring that, I find it hard to believe that a leftard likes guns, much less has ever held or fired one.

The whole point of concealed carry is that no one knows who is packing. This complicates the planning for someone who is considering an act of violence. Making an area a "gun free" zone is just asking for trouble because someone considering an act of violence knows ahead of time that no one will be there to oppose him.

Although I'm a strong gun rights supporter, I don't support guns in state capital buildings. The Tennessee state capital screens everyone that enters. Of course, they're not a bunch of left wing sympathizing wimps.

"Although I'm a strong gun rights supporter, I don't support guns in state capital buildings."

Why not? Just feeling that it's icky isn't a good enough reason, so I assume you have a better one... By point of contrast, here in WA it's perfectly legal to go armed into any state government building or office, except courts and a few other restricted places--and courts are explicitly required by state law to provide handgun storage for people entering the facility, and if the court is in a mixed-use facility to restrict the gun-banned part to court facilites themselves where practical.

I worry when I am in a place where concealed carry is not permitted. Someone who goes there with intent to kill will not be deterred by the prohibition. Yet those with no evil intent are denied the simple human right to protect themselves.

(Indeed, ordinary citizens who are firearms enthusiasts, who are those most likely to get carry permits, tend to be better at shooting and trigger discipline than the "professionals" in police departments.

Cops aren't actually special in some ability to carry arms "safely" while the ordinary citizen is a risk.)

There are no metal detectors or Capital Police with wands when you go into the capitol on a normal basis?

No, and I've wondered about that. Twice recently I've been in the Capitol with a monopod made of hardened aluminum topped with a heavy steel head and no one said anything.

The Supreme Court was hearing arguments during my last visit and Meade and I walked right up to the door of the court room; which is much smaller than I imagined. With a few quick strides I could have been at the justices' desks before anyone stopped me. Interestingly enough, Justice Prosser was seated right next to Justice Walsh Bradley, but for the time I observed him he was leaning back in his chair as if to get as far as possible from her.

Original MikeThose weren't ordinary citizens. They were crazy, looney leftists. So yes, I think you're right to worry.

Well, there we go. Truth always comes out. If someone you like carries a gun then that is there constitutional right. But if someone you don't like carries a gun then we all better worry and there should be gun control.

Remember is was Ronald Reagan who implemented strict gun laws in CA because the Black Panthers were openly carrying guns. Can't have black folks carrying guns was the message.

Why not? Just feeling that it's icky isn't a good enough reason, so I assume you have a better one...

Not really. Just a matter of decorum and etiquette. That's rather out of style nowadays, though. Of course, in Wisconsin it should be a requirement to carry considering the riff raff that hang out there.

"Well, there we go. Truth always comes out. If someone you like carries a gun then that is there constitutional right. But if someone you don't like carries a gun then we all better worry and there should be gun control."

I didn't say they should not be allowed their constitutional right.

Try commenting on the post that was written, not the one in your head.

The Capitol building, which has been seized by 'rethugs'--Governor, Supreme Court, Legislature is today's Army Math Center. Any 'diverse' UW Law School grad can tell you. So guns are not the answer, car bombs are the only effective tool in saving our world.

My response was simply to what you wrote. How do you define 'ordinary citizen'? The idea that 'looney lefties' are not ordinary citizens and therefore a threat is an indication that you just might believe that some can carry guns and some should not be allowed to.

Maybe you were simply joking, which is fine and sorry if I didn't get the joke.

First, nothing wrong with banning hand guns if you screen everyone. If you ban and don't screen, only the law abiding will not be carrying the guns.

Second, I feared the concealed carry way back when in Texas. The stats are in. I shouldn't have worried. The required course is just long enough and cheap enough that people are willing to do it and learn from it. Acts committed by licensed holders are minimal.

I would have felt better if I had been armed. After all, when seconds counted the capital police were only minutes away. However, I could have been just as happy with a brass-knobbed walking stick. It would have beat a vuvuzela in the face.

Class factotum said...How many more people would have died at UT when Charles Whitman was shooting from the tower if students hadn't run to get their guns from their cars and shoot back at him, forcing him inside?

============The heroes with guns a blazing were ineffective. Whitman was a crack shot, and just kept shooting from enfilade (cover) as he had been trained to in the Marine Corps.All the gunfire delayed a response as police 1st thought there were multiple shooters. Some cops on seeing dead bodies, then began shooting at a person with a hunting rifle, chasing him into a building...then calling for backup to help take down or root out the started Gun-loving Hero who had been blasting away on the Tower. Fortunately, they had other civilians say the guy was just shooting at the actual sniper..just as cops were ready to storm the building and kill the Hero.

Keep in mind that cops as well as many Guns Mean Freedom!! folks also operate on the premise that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. And if they don't know what is going on and people are being shot by a gunman - any civilian with a weapon is a threat to be put down and neutralized. And courts back the cops in killing any armed person they thought was a threat...though the city or town usually settles a lawsuit later

Whitman was shot by a cop, backed by one unarmed civilian, and one with a .22 revolver. Cop acted on his own initiative without instructions. From witnesses, he knew at least one of the shooters was in the Tower. He went up to kill the guy. Trying to, he was smart to keep low, because he was a target for the hero gunman below as much as Whitman was.

To this day, it is believed that 1-2 civilians on the ground were shot by cops as a threat. But it was Texas, 1966...no one was in a rush to investigate any shooting other than that "Dallas incident".

Actually, there is something wrong with banning + screening, or at least there certainly can be depending on how it's implemented.

First of all, if the screening causes a bottleneck in entering the banned area, then all you've done is create a target-rich environment at the checkpoint (cf. the LAX shooter.) Secondly, unless the perimeter is somewhat hardened, determined individuals will find it too easy to breach. For example, I've been in a couple of the local jails looking at their computer systems, and I would have no qualms disarming to enter: they have an "airlock" system, where you enter the first door, place your handgun in a locked cabinet, and only then does the gate person open the inner door for you. Pretty hard to breach. Our local courts are another matter, they just have a metal detector at the doors, and--especially at some of the minor entrances--not nearly enough backup to prevent someone from breaching their security, especially by someone who didn't care if they survived their escapade.

@Tyrone:Those are lovely! Do you ever go out? There are still a few who do...

@Everyone else:Strangely, I was recently in an area where every last one of us was carrying an assault rifle and anywhere from 30-210 rounds of ammo at ALL TIMES and no one shot ANYONE! Shocking! And everyone was unhappy about being there too.

I carry concealed every day. Many of my friends do. None of us start blowing away people we disagree with. I would hazard a guess that in most states, when you go to work you pass by a least a dozen concealed firearms and never know it.

"I worry when I am in a place where concealed carry is not permitted. Someone who goes there with intent to kill will not be deterred by the prohibition. Yet those with no evil intent are denied the simple human right to protect themselves."

I understand that and that weighs toward allowing guns. Agreed. But think of other situations, in which there's no one who comes in with criminal intent, planning a massacre or whatever. It's just a bunch of people who get each other wound up and they get crazy and somebody gets mad and it escalates suddenly. I'm afraid of people in that situation taking out guns.

Ann, for your own sake, please be more discriminating when calling "police, police." As we've seen from the comments here, you'll likely be facing a large dry cleaning bill. That gray matter is a bitch to get out of cashmere.

@Anne,Well, there are a LOT of states with a LOT of folks carrying concealed to all sorts of rowdy gatherings.

How many times has someone whipped out a firearm and blasted away at their nemesis of the moment?

I believe that number is zero. Against millions of firearms and millions of people carrying every day in just about every situation imaginable. I'll put my faith in my fellow American's ability to control themselves, at least those who have a lawful right to carry a weapon and who have gone to the trouble to get a CHL.

In almost every case I've heard of where someone DOES go nuts with a firearm, it's someone who should never have had possession of one in the first place. (Felon, psych-case, MCDV-convict, etc.) And of course, they were not deterred by the rules telling them that they couldn't have a handgun, much less couldn't have one at .

Ann said "I understand that and that weighs toward allowing guns. Agreed. But think of other situations, in which there's no one who comes in with criminal intent, planning a massacre or whatever. It's just a bunch of people who get each other wound up and they get crazy and somebody gets mad and it escalates suddenly. I'm afraid of people in that situation taking out guns."Ann it doesn't happen that way as has been proved in 48 other states in the last 25 years. Look at MN they allow guns in their capital if the permit holder sends a letter to the capitol police stating their intent to carry. In the five years (or seven depending on how you count) there have been zero incidents. Zero, permit holder or not. TX and FL studies find permit holders are up to five times less likely to break any law other than speeding restrictions than the average population. There are an estimated 5.5 million people in the country with a carry permit and the VPC has struggled to find 50 permit holders in the past ten years that have broken a law and used force. I'm pleased with that part of Van Hollens opinion, I'm not so pleased with the DOJs rules on classes going against what the legislature said would be the requirements.

Presumably, the same thing will happen that's been happening since WA started allowing licensed carry at the capital in Olympia: Liberals tools will experience PSH. Since liberal tools are unlikely to be carrying a gun themselves, there will be less violence than before...

. A competent attorney is going to provide a certain level of client service and will discuss payment arrangements in advance. Before you visit that attorney you saw on television or in the phone book, you should take a minute to arm yourself with information that could potentially save your thousands of dollars.personal injury attorney lakeland

It is so unfortunate that we continually attack our greatest companies in the United States. If we want our jobs back we are going to have to stop this, our economy needs a friendly government to business, but not a government that gives out corporate welfare.accident lawyer in lakeland